State Trooper's Typo Errors Result in Dropped DUI Conviction

For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

If a state trooper submitted sloppy paperwork that indicated in one area that the operator drove an Audi A4 and in another area that the operator drove a Mercedes Benz, the paperwork might not be considered reliable enough to be admitted into evidence.

In response to a 911 call, on April 24, 2014, police pulled over and arrested plaintiff Angel Huang Do and charged her with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §14-227a(a). Allegedly, her blood-alcohol content was .1184. The Connecticut state trooper who made the arrest, Troy Biggs, did not appear at the administrative hearing. Plaintiff objected to the admission of the A-44 form, because it contained numerous errors. The hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the A-44. The hearing officer concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish plaintiff was driving with a blood-alcohol content of .08 percent or more, and the hearing officer suspended plaintiff's driver's license for 90 days. The trial court remanded to the hearing officer, to clarify if plaintiff was driving the Audi A4 or the Mercedes Benz, and then affirmed. The driver appealed. The burden was on the proponent of the evidence, upon timely objection, to establish the evidence was admissible. The majority of the Appellate Court reversed and remanded, because the A-44 form contained too many errors to be reliable and should not have been admitted. On the A-44 form, Officer Biggs indicated that plaintiff operated a 2007 Audi A4. In an investigative report attached to the A-44, Biggs indicated that plaintiff was driving a 2006 Mercedes Benz. Biggs stated in the investigation report that plaintiff wore contact lenses and that she performed a field sobriety test with and without her glasses, which presumably she would not have worn with contact lenses. Because someone (presumably Bigg's supervisor, Sergeant Ryan Hennessey) made an attempt to correct the form and signed the form "RH," and the court did not know when the correction took place, that undermined the department's claim that Biggs swore to the accuracy of the information on the final A-44 form. The Department of Motor Vehicles possessed the burden to prove that the exhibit was reliable and admissible. "Portions of the exhibit," wrote the majority of the Appellate Court, "in all likelihood pertain to the arrest of another individual, calling into question which portions of the exhibit actually pertain to the plaintiff." Fundamental fairness required the admission of only reliable evidence.

The majority of the Appellate Court concluded that the A-44 form should not have been admitted, because it was not reliable, and that the department lacked sufficient evidence without the information on the A-44 to prove that plaintiff violated C.G.S. §14-227a(a). Judge Bear dissented and opined that "a large and undisputed portion of the exhibit" clearly described the plaintiff and her conduct and was reliable. Numerous areas of overlap existed between the A-44 and the investigative report. Both indicated the case number, the location and time, the driver's race, sex, birthday and address, that the driver failed three field sobriety tests and that the driver was informed about her Miranda rights. The reference to the Audi A4 was clearly a scrivener's error. "The hearing officer's decision that the exhibit was sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission, and that any issues with respect to it, or portions of it, went to the weight," wrote Bear, "was not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of discretion."

Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. atJMaya@Mayalaw.com.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source: J. Prescott, Driver Arrested For DUI Alleged A-44 Contained Errors, 42 Conn. Law Tribune 16